-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BENNET. 46 through 52, No. 82 through No. 107, No. 110 through No. 113, No. 133 through No. 139; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I think this is now the fifth time that I have been out here with the Senator from Alabama. We started this off some time ago, and we obviously have a profound and fundamental disagreement here. You know, I am deeply worried about this because I don't think this is actually about the Senators who are here. It is about people serving in our Armed Forces. It is about people living in the United States of America, and it is about some really fundamental things that have changed in the United States.

The Senators on the other side of the aisle, tonight, have been talking about a 40-year consensus about the funding of abortions by the Federal Government, which is not actually even at issue in this discussion because that is not part of the rules that have been changed.

I think that even the Senator from Utah's language here suggests that he knows that about the rules that have been proposed by the Department of Defense.

But the reason we are on this floor again is that the Senator from Alabama has said he will never compromise, and there is nothing that can convince him to change his mind, that he will be out here as long as it takes.

And let's ask the question: What is he defending? What is he defending? His position is that we shouldn't pay a travel allowance for members of the armed services who are going from a State that banned abortion to a State where they can get reproductive healthcare. He is against that, so he is holding up every single flag officer in the United States of America as a result of that--a tactic that has never been used in the history of the U.S. Senate in 230 years or more than that. That is what he is using because he is so offended that people can have their travel covered for this procedure.

He has never come here to object to the fact that people can get their travel covered for all kinds of medical procedures, even though none of those procedures are written into the underlying statute by the U.S. Congress because that is not our job. We delegate that to the Department of Defense.

So he is going to be out here, and he is going to fight this until there is no travel allowance for people who need to travel. They have to cover it on their own dime, just like they have to cover that reproductive surgery or abortion on their own dime, despite what the Senator from Alabama said. He is going to be out here until it all freezes over, until he ensures that--you just heard him say it--anybody who leaves has to take paid leave.

Let's be precise about it. Women who leave to travel to another State where an abortion is legal, under his scenario, will have to pay for that travel themselves even though we pay for that travel for all kinds of other things. He will be out here fighting this, making sure that not a single flag officer can ever be promoted in the Department of Defense, no matter who it is, no matter how important it is, until he is assured that women in the Defense Department are stripped of the ability to have a little bit of extra time to talk to their commanding officer when they are confronting one of the most difficult decisions anybody can make.

Those are the three rules that are at issue here--travel that is paid for, a little bit of extra time, and some paid leave.

Why are we having this debate? We are having this debate because for the first time in the history of the United States since Reconstruction, we have lost a fundamental freedom, we have lost a fundamental right, and that is the result of the Dobbs decision.

People come out here, and they are talking about a 40-year consensus on this or that. We had a 50-year consensus in this country about a woman's access to abortion. We had a 50-year consensus among the courts and among the American people about what a woman's right to choose looked like. And we had a 40-year campaign, year after year after year, to create a U.S. Supreme Court--a majority of whom subscribe to, in my opinion, the mythological legal doctrine of originalism--to strip the American people of that right, to strip the American people of that freedom, because if it wasn't a freedom in 1868, it is not a freedom today. That has dramatically upset the expectations of the American people, including those who serve in uniform.

Tragically, in my opinion--and this is one of those things where people can have fundamental moral disagreements and fundamental religious disagreements and fundamental positions that are totally different from one another, which I completely respect. I resolved these things in my own mind with the idea that this is a decision a woman should be left to make with her doctor. That is what I believe. But in the wake of this decision that was fought for for so long by so many politicians in America--50 years or more than 50 years--we have now lost that fundamental freedom. We have now lost that fundamental right. It is no longer a choice between a woman and her doctor.

In the wake of the Dobbs decision, there are 18 States that have now banned abortion--18 States. There are nine States--I just got a thumbs- up on the other side from the staff--there are nine States that have banned abortion without any exception for rape or incest.

The Senator from Alabama's State is a State that has banned abortion. It is a State where there is no exception for rape or incest. It is a State where, if you are a doctor and you have performed an abortion, you could go to jail for 99 years.

My State is totally different from that. My State is the first State in America, I think, that codified a woman's right to choose before Roe was even decided, in our State. In the aftermath of the Dobbs decision, we are the first State to say that we believe this should be a choice between a woman and her doctor.

We are going to fight that out in the country. A majority of people support the position that Colorado has taken. Fifty-five percent of the people in Alabama support the ability of women to be able to make this choice under some circumstances. Yet the Senator from Alabama has decided that his remedy can force his view of morality and of principle. His perspective is that he is going to do something that no Senator has done for 230 years, which is to hold up every flag officer's promotion in the Department of Defense.

Last week, seven former Secretaries of Defense, Republicans and Democrats, said that this block is ``harming military readiness and risks damaging U.S. national security.'' I am not saying that. I am not saying that. Seven former Secretaries of Defense have said that.

Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record so everybody can see that it is both Republicans and Democrats who are saying that about the unprecedented hold being put here by the Senator from Alabama.

Hon. Chuck Schumer, Senate Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Dear Leader Schumer and Leader McConnell: As former Secretaries of Defense, we strongly urge the Senate to act expeditiously on the nearly 200 nominees for general and flag officer who are being blocked from Senate confirmation.

The blanket hold on the promotion or reassignment of these senior uniformed leaders is harming military readiness and risks damaging U.S. national security. Because the Senate is required to confirm every general and flag officer for promotion or for reassignment, this practice has traditionally been a pro-forma exercise, except where there have been specific concerns about individual nominees, which were then handled separately.

The current hold that has been in place now for several weeks is preventing key leaders from assuming important, senior command and staff positions around the world. Some are unable to take important command positions, such as leading the 5th Fleet in Bahrain and the 7th Fleet in the Pacific, which are critical to checking Iranian and Chinese aggression, respectively. Others include the next military representative to NATO, a post essential to coordinating allied efforts in support of Ukraine, as well as the future Director ofintelligence at U.S. Cyber Command. Leaving these and many other senior positions in doubt at a time of enormous geopolitical uncertainty sends the wrong message to our adversaries and could weaken our deterrence.

Moreover, if this blanket hold is not lifted, nearly 80 three- and four-star commanders who are ending their terms in the coming months will not be able to be replaced. Worse, this will impact certain members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, including the Chairman of the JCS.

There are also real-world impacts on the families of these senior officers. Most cannot move and resettle their families; their children cannot enroll at their next schools on time; and spouses cannot start new jobs at the next duty station. We can think of few things as irresponsible and uncaring as harming the families of those who serve our nation in uniform.

We appreciate that Senators can have sincere and legitimate concerns about a Pentagon policy, including as it may relate to broader domestic or social issues. These lawmakers also deserve timely and thorough responses to their questions. However, we believe placing a hold on all uniformed nominees risks turning military officers into political pawns, holding them responsible for a policy decision made by their civilian leaders.

Rather, senators should leverage the numerous means available to them to challenge and change DOD policy, such as introducing legislation, conducting oversight hearings, or amending the annual National Defense Authorization Act.

We, therefore, strongly urge the Senate to ensure the continued readiness of the U.S. armed forces by lifting the blanket hold and promptly voting to confirm these uniformed nominees. Sincerely, Hon. William J. Perry,

Former U.S. Secretary of Defense. Hon. William S. Cohen,

Former U.S. Secretary of Defense. Hon. Robert M. Gates,

Former U.S. Secretary of Defense. Hon. Leon E. Panetta,

Former U.S. Secretary of Defense. Hon. Chuck Hagel,

Former U.S. Secretary of Defense. Hon. James N. Mattis,

Former U.S. Secretary of Defense. Hon. Mark T. Esper,

Former U.S. Secretary of Defense.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BENNET. I also want to say finally, and I will stop, that the rules the Department of Defense has had to put in place in the wake of the Dobbs decision stripping women of this fundamental freedom, stripping women of this fundamental right--these rules don't do what my colleagues are saying they are going to do.

Once again, it is a travel allowance. It says you can take paid leave. It says you can have a little bit more time to notify your commanding officer. That is all it is saying. My colleague from Alabama has unleashed the equivalent of this procedural nuclear weapon because that offends his principles, that offends his sense of what is right.

I am not here to debate with him his sense of what is right, but I do believe that it is right that people who are serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of America, people who have enlisted to defend this country, who do not have the right to pick and choose which State they are going to be in and serve in, whether it is--of all people in this country, of all people in this country--I have heard people say--in fact, I even heard the Senator from Utah say this; I have read him saying this--that one of the great things about living in America is that you can move from State to State. That is one of the great things of our federalist system, is you can take advantage of the laws that are consistent with your values and get away from the ones that are not. That is not true for our men and women in the military.

This is one of the practical consequences that the Dobbs majority never grappled with because they applied their view of originalism to the fundamental--to the issues we are facing today as a country.

The very first call I got after that decision was made--almost the first call--was from a woman who had served as an officer in the Air Force who told me a personal story that she had been through. She said to me: Michael, they have no idea what the effect of readiness is going to be on our Armed Forces. They have no idea.

I don't think they would have ever believed that it would have been Members of the U.S. Senate who would have affected the readiness in the wake of Dobbs the way that it is being done tonight.

So I would ask respectfully for the Senator from Alabama to withdraw his hold, to allow the Senate to move forward, as it has done for the last 230 years, to approve these candidates who have themselves signed up to serve and themselves done the work to get promoted. Let's have the argument that we need to have as a nation--that we need to have as a nation--about this fundamental freedom and about this fundamental right without holding our Department of Defense hostage.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, the hour is late, and I am conscious that we are supposed to get off the floor. I know the staff needs to go home. So I won't belabor this.

I will say that I will put to one side, and I am sure that my colleague, my friend from Utah, would agree, that we are not talking here about a drunken frat party and the fortunes or misfortunes of an ungrateful student and their rich uncle. We are talking about people that, in real life, are having to make decisions that are the most fundamental decisions that any individual can make.

They have had 50 years' worth of expectations about what those decisions are going to look like, and those expectations have been completely upset by the Supreme Court, first, when this originalist majority ruled that if it wasn't a freedom in 1868, it is not a freedom today. It is something that, when I was in law school, I never imagined that I would ever have read out of a Supreme Court opinion, certainly not on something of this magnitude.

But then in the wake of it, 18 States banned abortion. In the wake of it, nine States banned abortion without exceptions for rape or incest. In the wake of it, in Alabama, they are saying that if doctors use chemicals for abortion, they can be prosecuted with a statute that was written to attack fentanyl or methamphetamines. And in the wake of it, Members of the U.S. Senate come to this floor and use a procedure that has never been used before in the history of America to hold up every single flag promotion just to make sure they can make it harder for somebody who is facing the most difficult decision that they can ever make; to make it harder for them to decide when they are going to talk to their superior officer; to make it harder for them to travel somewhere where, yes, they have to pay for that abortion out of their pocket; to ensure that you have to use paid leave to do it; that that is such an injustice that we are going to come out here and hold up every flag officer's promotion.

Some people, after this ruling--I never heard the Senator from Utah say this, and I am not ascribing this to him. But there were people after that ruling who said: Don't worry about this. You don't have to worry about this. This is just States' rights. It is the laboratory of the States. It is going back to the States.

And 18 States have banned abortion, and many of those States are States where people in the armed services serve. They have no choice over where they serve.

I am not the originalist on this floor tonight, but I can read the plain language of those regulations, and I could see from that plain language that there is nothing in there that pays for abortion.

There was nobody coming here to the floor indignantly saying that their rights as a Senator had been somehow stripped as a result of that rulemaking--far from it, because people recognized that in order for the Department of Defense to function just like any other administrative Agency, they have to be able to make decisions based on delegated powers from the U.S. Congress. And in the face of what has happened with the Dobbs decision, the Defense Department is trying to get to a place where there is a reasonable outcome for people who have to make this decision.

I think there is a lot of benefit to federalism, but one of those benefits ought to be that, if you are serving in the Department of Defense and the Department of Defense assigns you, as is the Department of Defense's right, without your permission or without your say-so, without your OK, that it is reasonable for the Department of Defense to notice when you are living in a State that has banned abortion with no exceptions for rape or incest. It is reasonable for the Department of Defense to notice that you are living in a State where, if you are a doctor and you performed an abortion, you could go to jail for 99 years or, if you are living in the ``Republic'' of Texas, where they have actually put a bounty of $10,000 or $20,000 so that, if a neighbor or a friend turns you in for pursuing reproductive healthcare--an abortion-- you can get that money because you let somebody know that you have done that.

I mean, I admit this has all changed because of Dobbs, and now we are trying to grapple with that. We are all trying to grapple with that, and we all have differences of opinion about that.

But I think what we are saying is, don't make a difficult situation even harder for the people who have signed up, volunteered to be at the Department of Defense; don't create more uncertainty at the Department of Defense by holding up these flag promotions just to get your point of view, just to be able to make sure that it is harder, not easier, for people to access reproductive healthcare.

And I think that is why, when the Senator from Alabama says that nothing is going to convince him, that he is going to be doing this as long as it takes, I am really worried that that is going to take forever because the majority, certainly, of the American people are not going to agree that we should make it harder for people who are in this position.

And by the way, just on the other point about what the Federal law actually says here: We voted, I think, the other day, if I am not wrong, on a CRA--or whatever those administrative things are around here--because the Senator from Alabama was angry that the VA had changed the exceptions for providing abortion from just the life of the mother to situations where there is rape or incest. He was so angry at that, he came out here to address that.

So don't think this isn't about that subject, that this isn't about a woman's right to choose. That is exactly--that is why these guys are out here. I am not saying the Senator from Utah. That is why this objection has been made.

So I think the American people need to understand--I hope they understand--who is standing up here on this floor tonight for a woman's right to choose, for that fundamental constitutional and human right, and who is opposing. And I know that there are significant disagreements, as I said earlier, in our country about those two issues.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I hope we will bring this to a close, but I would first of all say that--stating the obvious--neither the Senator from Utah nor I are a woman, and I am not going to suggest that I know how people who are women in the military necessarily feel about this.

I suspect, far less often than the person whom the Senator from Utah is concerned about, which is somebody who feels like they are somehow discriminated against because they are going to carry a child to term versus somebody who is going to face this really hard, hard, hard choice, that a much more likely feeling and sense of harm will be the complete loss of any sense of privacy that they are going to have as a result of Dobbs and the effect of Dobbs and the effect of what these people are arguing tonight on the floor of the Senate about: making it harder to travel; about saying that, no, you can't have more time to talk to your commanding officer about a decision that you have to make; no, the entire unit is going to know what it is that you are going to have to confront because, unlike every other medical procedure that we are dealing with, when it is abortion, then everybody is going to know, and your right to privacy has been eviscerated.

I guarantee you, for every single person who feels the way that the Senator from Utah suggests that some people feel, like somehow they are being discriminated against because they are not in the position to have to deal with the most difficult decision that anybody could make, that the number of people who are concerned about what this has done to the right to privacy--and this not just in the Department of Defense but in our country--is far greater, is far greater.

And I would also just say that if States' rights were of such paramount importance, that there wouldn't be people in this country right now trying to make it illegal for States to allow people to use chemicals to perform abortions, even though that is how a majority of abortions in this country are performed.

And I don't agree with the Senator from Utah that we should have a military where I can just decide, as an individual, that I am not going to serve in a State because the laws of that State are ones that I don't agree to or I don't subscribe to or I morally disagree with. That is not how the military is supposed to work.

I would argue that is a lot more important than what the Constitution has to say about weights and measures.

I suspect there is also a reason why no Senator in the history of America, on any issue of profound importance, as this issue is, has held hostage every single flag officer promotion of the Department of Defense.

I suspect there is a reason why that has never happened before-- because we know the damage this is doing, and we know that sometimes, once you put yourself into a cul-de-sac, it is really, really hard to get out of it, especially when the majority of the American people don't agree with you on the substance and don't agree with your tactic. But that is where we are tonight.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BENNET. I wrap just by saying this: I think that the choice that has been made is a practical choice that has been made in the wake of a fundamental freedom and a fundamental right being stripped from the American people, and we are not going to solve that disagreement tonight.

That is why we are here tonight.

With that,

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BENNET. Let's do it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I would ask my colleague, addressing the Senator from Utah through the Chair, where in the rules there is language that says the Department of Defense will pay for an abortion. Where is it? Because it is not in the plain text, you know, and that is the basis for this objection. That is the basis for the moral objection, if there is one, and that is the basis for the offense that the Senators have taken from the idea that the Department of Defense would steal from the Senate the ability to make these judgments on their own. I can't find anything in the plain text that says it. We checked--my office has checked again, as we have every night that I have been out here--and are assured that if a servicemember goes to another State to seek abortion services, that abortion is not paid for by the Department of Defense or by the Federal Government.

So I would ask again the Senator from Utah to show us--he can do it off the floor--where the language is that is in these rules that explicitly says that.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BENNET. I appreciate the gloss that the Senator from Utah has put on the plain language of this statute, which clearly does not allow--if it did, he would have shown us that language.

I wish that Justice Alito and the other members of the Supreme Court who applied the originalist view that determined that because it doesn't say a woman's right to choose in the Constitution, there must not be such a fundamental right--I wish they had used the sort of statutory interpretation my colleague from Utah has chosen this evening. Similarly, with the approach to federalism, you know, it all depends on what the underlying issue happens to be.

With that,

Cal. No. 46--Col. Leigh A. Swanson to be Brigadier General IN THE ARMY

Exec. Cal. No. 47--Maj. Gen. Sean A. Gainey to be Lieutenant General

Exec. Cal. No. 48--Maj. Gen. Heidi J. Hoyle to be Lieutenant General

Exec. Cal. No. 49--Brig. Gen. Laurence S. Linton to be Major General

Exec. Cal. No. 50--Brig. Gen. Stacy M. Babcock to be Major General and Col. Peggy R. McManus to be Brigadier General IN THE AIR FORCE

Exec. Cal. No. 51--Maj. Gen. Andrew J. Gebara to be Lieutenant General IN THE ARMY

Exec. Cal. No. 52--Maj. Gen. Robert M. Collins to be Lieutenant General IN THE AIR FORCE

Exec. Cal. No. 82--to be Brigadier Col. David J. Berkland; Col. Amy S. Bumgarner; Col. Ivory D. Carter; Col. Raja J. Chari; Col. Jason E. Corrothers; Col. John B. Creel; Col. Nicholas B. Evans; Col. Bridget V. Gigliotti; Col. Christopher B. Hammond; Col. Leslie F. Hauck, III; Col. Kurt C. Helphinstine; Col. Abraham L. Jackson; Col. Benjamin R. Jonsson; Col. Joy M. Kaczor; Col. Christopher J. Leonard; Col. Christopher E. Menuey; Col. David S. Miller; Col. Jeffrey A. Philips; Col. Erik N. Quigley; Col. Michael S. Rowe; Col. Derek M. Salmi; Col. Kayle M. Stevens; Col. Jose E. Sumangil; Col. Terence G. Taylor; Col. Jason D. Voorheis; Col. Michael O. Walters; Col. Adrienne L. Williams

Exec. Cal. No. 83--Col. Corey A. Simmons to be to be Brigadier General IN THE NAVY

Exec. Cal. No. 84--Rear Adm. George M. Wikoff to be Vice Admiral

Exec. Cal. No. 85--Rear Adm. Frederick W. Kacher to be Vice Admiral IN THE AIR FORCE

Exec. Cal. No. 47--to be Brigadier General: Col. Sean M. Carpenter; Col. Mary K. Haddad; Col. James L. Hartle; Col. Aaron J. Heick; Col. Joseph D. Janik; Col. Michael T. McGinley; Col. Kevin J. Merrill; Col. Tara E. Nolan; Col. Roderick C. Owens; Col. Mark D. Richey; Col. Norman B. Shaw, Jr.

Exec. Cal. No. 87--to be Brigadier General: Col. Kristin A. Hillery; Col. Michelle L. Wagner

Exec. Cal. No. 88--to be Major General: Brig. Gen. Elizabeth E. Arledge; Brig. Gen. Robert M. Blake; Brig. Gen. Vanessa J. Dornoefer; Brig. Gen. Christopher A. Freeman; Brig. Gen. David P. Garfield; Brig. Gen. Mitchell A. Hanson; Brig. Gen. Jody A. Merritt; Brig. Gen. Adrian K. White; Brig. Gen. William W. Whittenberger, Jr.; Brig. Gen. Christopher F. Yancy IN THE ARMY

Exec. Cal. No. 89--Col. Carlos M. Caceres to be Brigadier General IN THE NAVY

Exec. Cal. No. 90--Rear Adm. Shoshana S. Chatfield--to be Vice Admiral IN THE ARMY

Exec. Cal. No. 91--Col. William F. Wilkerson to be Brigadier General

Exec. Cal. No. 92--Col. Evelyn E. Laptook to be Brigadier General

Exec. Cal. No. 93--Brig. Gen. Ronald R. Ragin to be Major General

Exec. Cal. No. 94--to be Brigadier General: Col. Brandon C. Anderson; Col. Beth A. Behn; Col. Matthew W. Braman; Col. Kenneth J. Burgess; Col. Thomas E. Burke; Col. Chad C. Chalfont; Col. Kendall J. Clarke; Col. Patrick M. Costello; Col. Rory A. Crooks; Col. Troy M. Denomy; Col. Sara E. Dudley; Col. Joseph E. Escandon; Col. Alric L. Francis; Col. George C. Hackler; Col. William C. Hannan, Jr.; Col. Peter G. Hart; Col. Gregory L. Holden; Col. Paul D. Howard; Col. James G. Kent; Col. Curtis W. King; Col. John P. Lloyd; Col. Shannon M. Lucas; Col. Landis C. Maddox; Col. Kareem P. Montague; Col. John B. Mountford; Col. David C. Phillips; Col. Kenneth N. Reed; Col. John W. Sannes; Col. Andrew O. Saslav; Col. Charlone E. Stallworth; Col. Jennifer S. Walkawicz; Col. Camilla A. White; Col. Scott D. Wilkinson; Col. Jeremy S. Wilson; Col. Scott C. Woodward; Col. Joseph W. Wortham, II; Col. David J. Zinn IN THE MARINE CORPS

Exec. Cal. No. 95--to be Brigadier General: Col. David R. Everly; Col. Kelvin W. Gallman; Col. Adolfo Garcia, Jr.; Col. Matthew T. Good; Col. Trevor Hall; Col. Richard D. Joyce; Col. Omar J. Randall; Col. Robert S. Weiler IN THE NAVY

Exec. Cal. No. 96--to be Rear Admiral (lower half): Capt. Walter D. Brafford; Capt. Robert J. Hawkins

Exec. Cal. No. 97--to be Rear Admiral (lower half): Capt. Amy N. Bauernschmidt; Capt. Michael B. Devore; Capt. Thomas A. Donovan Capt. Frederic C. Goldhammer; Capt. Ian L. Johnson; Capt. Neil A. Koprowski; Capt. Paul J. Lanzilotta; Capt. Joshua Lasky; Capt. Donald W. Marks; Capt. Craig T. Mattingly; Capt. Andrew T. Miller; Capt. Lincoln M. Reifsteck; Capt. Frank A. Rhodes, IV; Capt. Thomas E. Shultz; Capt. Todd E. Whalen; Capt. Forrest O. Young

Exec. Cal. No. 98--to be Rear Admiral (lower half): Capt. Brian J. Anderson; Capt. Julie M. Treanor

Exec. Cal. No. 99--to be Rear Admiral: Rear Adm. (lh) Casey J. Moton; Rear Adm. (lh) Stephen R. Tedford

Exec. Cal. No. 100--Rear Adm. (lh) Rick Freedman to be Rear Admiral

Exec. Cal. No. 101--Rear Adm. (lh) Kenneth W. Epps to be Rear Admiral

Exec. Cal. No. 102--to be Rear Admiral: Rear Adm. (lh) Stephen D. Barnett; Rear Adm. (lh) Michael W. Baze; Rear Adm. (lh) Richard T. Brophy, Jr.; Rear Adm. (lh) Joseph F. Cahill, III; Rear Adm. (lh) Brian L. Davies; Rear Adm. (lh) Michael P. Donnelly; Rear Adm. (lh) Daniel P. Martin; Rear Adm. (lh) Richard E. Seif, Jr.; Rear Adm. (lh) Paul C. Spedero, Jr.; Rear Adm. (lh) Derek A. Trinque; Rear Adm. (lh) Dennis Velez; Rear Adm. (lh) Darryl L. Walker; Rear Adm. (lh) Jeromy B. Williams

Exec. Cal. No. 103--Capt. Frank G. Schlereth, II to be Rear Admiral (lower half)

Exec. Cal. No. 104--to be Rear Admiral (lower half): Capt. Joshua C. Himes; Capt. Kurtis A. Mole

Exec. Cal. No. 105--to be Rear Admiral (lower half): Capt. Thomas J. Dickinson; Capt. Kevin R. Smith; Capt. Todd S. Weeks; Capt. Dianna Wolfson IN THE AIR FORCE

Exec. Cal. No. 106--to be Major General: Brig. Gen. Thomas W. Harrell; Brig. Gen. Jeannine M. Ryder IN THE MARINE CORPS

Exec. Cal. No. 107--Lt. Gen. James W. Bierman, Jr. to be Lieutenant General IN THE AIR FORCE

Exec. Cal. No. 110--To be Major General: Brig. Gen. Curtis R. Bass; Brig. Gen. Kenyon K. Bell; Brig. Gen. Charles D. Bolton; Brig. Gen. Larry R. Broadwell, Jr.; Brig. Gen. Scott A. Cain; Brig. Gen. Sean M. Choquette; Brig. Gen. Roy W. Collins; Brig. Gen. John R. Edwards; Brig. Gen. Jason T. Hinds; Brig. Gen. Justin R. Hoffman; Brig. Gen. Stacy J. Huser; Brig. Gen. Matteo G. Martemucci; Brig. Gen. David A. Mineau; Brig. Gen. Paul D. Moga; Brig. Gen. Ty W. Neuman; Brig. Gen. Christopher J. Niemi; Brig. Gen. Brandon D. Parker; Brig. Gen. Michael T. Rawls; Brig. Gen. Patrick S. Ryder; Brig. Gen. David G. Shoemaker; Brig. Gen. Rebecca J. Sonkiss; Brig. Gen. Claude K. Tudor, Jr.; Brig. Gen. Dale R. White IN THE MARINE CORPS

Exec. Cal. No. 111--Maj. Gen. Bradford J. Gering to be Lieutenant General

Exec. Cal. No. 112--Maj. Gen. Gregory L. Masiello to be Lieutenant General

Exec. Cal. No. 113--Rear Adm. James P. Downey to be Vice Admiral IN THE ARMY

Exec. Cal. No. 130--Maj. Gen. John W. Brennan, Jr. to be Lieutenant General IN THE NAVY

Exec. Cal. No. 131--Vice Adm. Karl O. Thomas to be Vice Admiral IN THE MARINE CORPS

Exec. Cal. No. 132--Lt. Gen. Michael S. Cederholm to be Lieutenant General IN THE AIR FORCE

Exec. Cal. No. 133--Brig. Gen. Derin S. Durham to be Major General IN THE ARMY

Exec. Cal. No. 134--to be Brigadier General: Col. Brandi B. Peasley; Col. John D. Rhodes; Col. Earl C. Sparks, IV

Exec. Cal. No. 135--Brig. Gen. William Green, Jr. to be Major General

Exec. Cal. No. 136--Maj. Gen. Mark T. Simerly to be Lieutenant General IN THE MARINE CORPS

Exec. Cal. No. 137--Maj. Gen. Ryan P. Heritage to be Lieutenant General IN THE NAVY

Exec. Cal. No. 138--Vice Adm. Craig A. Clapperton to be Vice Admiral IN THE AIR FORCE

Exec. Cal. No. 139--Col. Brian R. Moore to be Brigadier General

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source